The NIST Cybersecurity Framework (CSF), currently version 2.0 (February 2024), is a voluntary, risk-based framework that organizes cybersecurity activities into six core Functions: Govern, Identify, Protect, Detect, Respond, and Recover. CSF 2.0 expanded the original five Functions by adding Govern and is designed to apply to organizations of any size and sector - including MedTech manufacturers and Healthcare Delivery Organizations.

Why it matters

CSF is most useful as the organizing skeleton for a security program - not as a control catalog. The Subcategories tell you what outcomes to achieve; the Informative References point to ISO 27001, NIST 800-53, COBIT, and similar control catalogs that detail how. MedTech teams typically maintain a CSF Profile alongside their QMS to show coverage at audit.

Common pitfalls

•Confusing NIST CSF with NIST 800-53 - CSF is the framework, 800-53 is one control catalog.
•Using CSF as a checklist without tying Subcategories to actual procedures and evidence.
•Skipping the new Govern function in CSF 2.0 - it formalizes board-level cybersecurity oversight.

Sources

NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 · NIST
FDA Cybersecurity Guidance (Sept 2023) · FDA
MDCG Cybersecurity Guidance · MDCG

Open full page

Select term B to compare.

Why compare MedTech terms side by side?

MedTech terminology is full of pairs that look interchangeable but carry very different regulatory, clinical, and commercial consequences. Picking the wrong framework, pathway, or standard early in a project can add months to a submission, invalidate clinical evidence, or trigger an audit finding. Side-by-side comparison is the fastest way to surface those differences before they become costly mistakes.

Each comparison on this page pulls from the same vendor-neutral, sourced definitions used throughout the MedTech Terms glossary. You see the one-line summary, the formal definition, why it matters in practice, common pitfalls, and the primary sources (FDA guidance, EU MDR/IVDR articles, ISO/IEC standards, MDCG documents, IMDRF principles) that back each entry. That makes the comparison defensible in regulatory strategy memos, design reviews, and submission narratives.

Common comparison patterns

Regulatory pathway choice - 510(k) vs PMA, 510(k) vs De Novo, Abbreviated vs Special 510(k).
Quality systems - QSR vs ISO 13485, QMSR vs QSR.
Software classification - SaMD vs SiMD, Locked vs adaptive AI.
EU frameworks - MDR vs IVDR, CE Mark vs UKCA.
Cybersecurity artifacts - SPDX vs CycloneDX SBOM, CVE vs CVSS.
Post-market actions - Recall vs field action, Removal vs correction.

How to use this tool

Pick term A and term B from the dropdowns, or click a preset above. The URL updates with both slugs so you can bookmark or share the exact comparison with a colleague, a notified body reviewer, or your regulatory consultant. Click Open full page on either side for the complete entry, including FAQs, related terms, and the full citation list. If you are not sure which term to start with, browse the Categories view or the A-Z index.

MedTech Terms is a vendor-neutral community resource sponsored by Blue Goat Cyber. Definitions are written for educational use and are not legal or regulatory advice.